Stan Edwards Call to WTKA

Submitted by Ziff72 on December 20th, 2010 at 10:52 AM

So 2 weeks ago Stan called in to blast Brian and Craig Ross for their criticism of ex players toward Rodriguez.   Stan had me fired up as he told them that he went to see RR last week to offer his support.  As a decorated alum and RR's open door policy toward them I am sure he has access to practice, facilities,  whatever.

So today he called into the recruiting roundup and threw Beilein under the bus with a story about him not accepting B. Kearney which nobody had heard including Sam and then asked Sam a question about one of his kids who is a Sophmore in football and how much contact he can have with schools as he intimated he was disappointed he hadn't heard from Michigan yet, but had heard from Oregon(at this point Sam explained only a questionare could be sent or it was illegal contact and that Mich had to be on its best behavior). 

I guess my question is if he went and saw RR last week, couldn't he just tell him about the kid and ask him to send him a questionare or talk to Singleton about the rules.   To call publicly just seemed like a way to jab at the staff at not being on top of an instate kid we can't even talk to anyway.   Seemed very odd.

Also, what happened to R. Leach on WTKA.  He used to call all the time and now I never hear from him.  I know he took a lot of heat when Lloyd went to the Iowa game and he fried him for it, but was there something else that happened that stops him from coming on with Sam?





December 20th, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^

I have much love for our alumni brethren but this statement you made is on point.  The Edward's family could or should back off just a bit. 

That statement about the BB program is a complete embarrassment.  Especially coming from one of ours!  Not in public damnit!  Damn, I'm angry now...where's the bowl game posts?


December 20th, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^

I'm pretty damn sure that John Beilein would welcome a player of Kearney's abilities without a second's hesitation.  Furthermore, every scouting service shows Brandan having an offer from Michigan.  So, um, wtf?

Sounds like dumb, unfounded babbling to me.


December 20th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^

I guess I just don't see why Beilein would slow-play someone of Kearney's abilities, but I guess it's possible.

I shouldn't have jumped to say it was "dumb unfounded babbling."  Just sounds highly unlikely that we'd turn him down.  Maybe at the time we thought we had a great shot with Amir Williams still.  I don't know.

Kilgore Trout

December 20th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^

I could be off on my timing, but at that point, LLP was still on the roster and I don't think Manny had officially left yet.  They were going after Ziegler, Prather, and to some extent McCallum.  Then throw in all of the 2011 big men (Williams, Zeller, Plumlee) and the scholarship picture must have been pretty murkey.  It's possible they were in a position to really only take one guy at that point, and they made the decision to go with Brudidge.  In hindsight, they should have just accepted both (if that was truly an option), but we all know about hindsight.  And of course, my timing could all be completely wrong, nullifiing my entire point.

EDIT:  Yeah, this all went down in September of '09, before these guys had even begun their junior seasons in high school.  Maybe this is why early signing periods aren't so awesome. 


December 20th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^

and then asked Sam a question about one of his kids who is a Sophmore in football and how much contact he can have with schools as he intimated he was disappointed he hadn't heard from Michigan yet, but had heard from Oregon(at this point Sam explained only a questionare could be sent or it was illegal contact and that Mich had to be on its best behavior).

Maybe I just can't read, but whose kid are you talking about here?  Does Sam Webb have a kid who's a sophomore, does Edwards have a son who's a sophomore, or is Edwards a football coach and "has a kid on the team" who's a sophomore?

That part confused me.  


December 20th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

was he's coaching a kid who will be a junior in the fall. He is 6'0'' 170, and ran one of the fastest times in the 200 in the country, He went from saying "teams" to "Pac Ten" teams to "Oregon" in about 4 sentences. He also said the kid recieved letters with questionnaires to just questionnaires. It was a pretty awkward exchange.


(this was all from memory, but I think I got the gist of it)


December 20th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^

I just listened to the podcast.  Edwards referred to him as a kid "in my program."  His concern was that Oregon and others are winning this kid over b/c they're contacting him and Michigan isn't.  Edwards also said that he didn't know the rules about contacting sophomores.  Sam explained that you can only send a sophomore a questionnaire.  He further explained that M's probation is causing them to follow that sort of rule to an extent that other schools may not be.


December 20th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^

He played varsity for Chelsea last year at TB. My nephew is on the team (OL) so I caught a few games. Personally, I think the younger Edwards may have been better served playing on JV last year for development reasons. He would have gotten more PT.  From what I saw, he has some talent but needs to develop a better feel for the game as he ran a bit tentative and missed some holes. It would be great to see a big leap forward next fall.

Kilgore Trout

December 20th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

Kearney seemed like an odd thing.  Everything I read (mainly umhoops) seemed to have Kearney as a strong lean to UM.  Then I heard Sam talking one morning about a big hoops commit coming up for UM, and I assumed it was Kearney.  It was Brundidge, and then suddenly Kearney was committing to MSU.  I wonder if they were still hoping to get Prather and / or Ziegler and couldn't keep a spot open for Kearney?  Looking back, probably wasn't a great move if that's how it played out.   Bball recruiting has to be a tough game with the limited spots.  Really can't afford to misplay your hand too often without really hurting the program.


December 20th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^

"I wonder if they were still hoping to get Prather and / or Ziegler and couldn't keep a spot open for Kearney?  Looking back, probably wasn't a great move if that's how it played out."

According to cousin Stan, he was offered, wanted to commit, was told to "wait" while Beilein waited on the other recruits, then went to state.  Stan has a legitmate criticism, imo.


December 20th, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^

You actually nailed it in an earlier post above when you talked about hindsight. If Beilein had a crystal ball telling him that Zeigler was going to sign with CMU in the spring of 2010, then he could have just accepted Kearney's commitment in the fall of 2009. But Beilein evidently thought he had a good shot at landing Zeigler and so was holding a spot open for him. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, given the hype surrounding Zeigler and that he is in the class ahead of Kearney.

Recruiting is also a two-way street. Let's assume Kearney really wanted to come to Michigan. All he had to do was wait until the spring of 2010 and he could he have committed then--after Zeigler announced for CMU.

So hindsight is not only 20-20, it also works in two ways in this case. You might criticize Beilein for how he handled Kearney's recruitment. But, looking back, you could also criticize Kearney for rushing a decision, because if he had waited six months he could have committed to Michigan at that time.


December 20th, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^

I understand that MSU might have been pressuring him for a decision, and perhaps that's why Kearney committed to MSU when he did. And, to be clear, if that's the case, I don't blame him at all for jumping at the MSU offer.

My point was if you're going to play the hindsight game, it applies equally to both Beilein and Kearney in this case. Because had Kearney waited, he could have committed to U-M in the spring.

There seems to be a bit of revisionist history going on here as well. As I recall the recruiting of Zeigler and Kearney, Zeigler was the big prize. People were eager for his commitment as a replacement for Manny Harris. Had Beilein accepted a commitment from Kearney in the fall of 2009 and left himself without a scholarship to offer Zeigler, wouldn't there have been a ton of people complaining about that?

The bottom line is I'm not going to criticize Beilein for waiting on Zeigler as that seemed to be the right decision at the time.

Kilgore Trout

December 20th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^

I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with me, but I think I agree with you.  Knowing everything that we know now about how recruiting for the last 18 months have played out, of course we should have taken Kearney.  BUT, that isn't realistic.  Most of the people "in the know" seemed to think Beilein handled it right for the situation at the time.  I was more trying to comment on the fact that recruiting in hoops is a weird beast and things are often very fluid.  

It's unfortunate that UM wasn't able to land Prather, Ziegler, Kearney, or Pointer, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the strategy UM used.  


December 21st, 2010 at 12:05 AM ^

I had thought perhaps you were saying Beilein had misplayed his hand in regard to Kearney, but it seems that isn't what you meant. So I think we're on the same page here.

You're absolutely right about basketball recruiting being such a tough game. It seems as if Beilein made the right moves in this situation, but it just didn't work out.

The good news is we have Brundidge and Burke lined up for 2011. Despite what happened at that game the other night, I'm still very excited about Brundidge, and I don't think anyone should have any regrets about Beilein taking his commitment when he did. The more I read about Brundidge, the more he sounds like a real winner.

The Denarding

December 20th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^

Of Beilein to inform recruits if there is a legitimate point of waiting.  It would have been worse for him to accept a commitment that he would have had to rescind because he made promises to others earlier. 

I think Kearney is an AMAZING player and actually would have been ideal for Michigan (basically as Morris redux with arguably a better shot).  And if John was concerned about backcourt depth or the future I am certain he would have taken the commitment.  But the back court depth must have been at a point where he felt it was feasible to hold off on committing knowing full well he could lose the kid.  

Beilein isn't dumb - I have to assume he must have been happy with the back court recruits that are coming in,


Section 1

December 20th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^

He's got an unfortunate tendency to say stuff that is inflammatory and poorly explained.  Which is not good, for a coach.  A few weeks ago, as alluded to in the OP, Stan popped off in a WTKA segment with Brian Cook and Sam, and then hung up on the air.

And we should observe at the same time, that Stan has had to play the role of the coolheaded peacemaker, in order to try to fill in the blanks and walk back certain even-more inexplicable comments from Braylon, i.e., "Lloyd Carr's University of Michigan." Et cetera, et cetera.

But this history of cranky radio interviews with Stan goes back at least as far as Stan's complaint that some form of anti-Michigan bias in Cleveland and greater Ohio was what led to Braylon's unhappy departure from the Browns:

Replete with allegations that their "lives were put in danger."  It would seem that Stan Edwards could have, and should have, a very positive role with Michigan Athletics.  But it might well start with Stan doing fewer, or at least better, radio interviews.

Section 1

December 20th, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^

Stan DID hang up on them.  On-air.  And actually, the reason that I think that is remarkable, is because unlike the usual mosh-pit of sportstalk radio callers, Stan Edwards is someone whom I'd presumptively want to give adequate air-time to, particularly to explain stories about his own role in matters like his own involvement in the football program, his own observations on the reported comments of Braylon, etc.

So I wouldn't expect radio hosts to cut off Stan, the way that they might other "first-name callers" from the radio wilderness.  Because I in fact DO presume that Stan Edwards deserves a level of respect and airtime beyond the normal.  And in this case, the radio hosts were ready and willing to provide Stan with all the air-time he wanted.  But Stan, clearly angry, hung up on them.  Before resolving the issue at hand.  Which, at that time, was Brian Cook's assertion that Braylon had made a statement to the effect that he [Braylon] was a volunteer to head up the committe to fire Rich Rodriguez, or words to that effect.  There's a right and a wrong answer there; either Braylon said it, or he didn't.  If Stan Edwards wants to make the affirmative case that he knows that Braylon did not say that, and that in fact Braylon supports Rich Rodriguez (as Stan claims that he does), then that would be a good basis for further discussion.  But, again, Stan hung up.

And of course Braylon could speak for himself on that subject.  But here again, we seem to have Stan doing a bit of clean-up for an otherwise-silent Braylon.  In the same, odd fashion that Stan weighed in on Braylon's tenure with the Browns, and the same way that Stan tried to help Braylon walk back his cryptic "Lloyd Carr's University of Michigan" comment. 

I don't know why Stan would have to hang up, in the course of an on-air telephone call to a radio station, before, as you suggest, he "a) said something he didn't mean or b) got dragged into semantics."  In that situation, Stan should be given time to 'say what he means.'  And by answering questions, and making his point very clearly, the 'merely semantic' should be avoided.


December 20th, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^

he said that Brian reported was untrue and unsubstantiated muck-raking that did not stand up to the reality that players, such as himself, were doing what they could. he basically, very pointedly, noted that nobody was reporting the positive and only reporting the rumored negative. he doesn't need to get into a discussion to clear Braylon's name because, as he pointed out, he shouldn't have to due to the fact it was lowbrow to even bring up. it's not Stan's responsibility to give a 5 minute explanation as to why the rumor Brian introduced was improper to bring up.

Section 1

December 20th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^

The two of them are the proud subjects of a brilliant legacy at Michigan.  People like Stan and Braylon should be the subjects of our unquestioning admiration.  I'd like that to be the case.

But Braylon has a very unfortunate history with respect to the Rich Rodriguez situation.  On occasion, Stan has stepped in to try to work Braylon out of it, even when what Braylon said was beyond any dispute.  i.e., "Lloyd Carr's University of Michigan."  Let's give Stan credit for that.

The history was, and still is, such that Brian Cook took it as credible when he was apparently told that Braylon announced to a private gathering of football letter winners, that he'd be glad to serve on a fire RR Committee.  There are, sadly, a handful of prior statements by Braylon that would lead someone to suspect that another one happened, in private.

But let's not assume that; let's assume that Braylon really didn't say any such thing.  That it really was a horribly misstated and misreported story by Brian Cook.  (Which would be entirely inconsistent with past statements.)  Braylon would be owed a humble apology.  It would help, in that healing process, for Braylon to personally and publicly declare his support for RR, just as Stan has.

Braylon's given an enormous amount back to his alma mater; and it should not be for any of us, least of all me, to demand of Braylon Edwards him that he give any more.  But it would cost Braylon nothing at all, to declare his support, personally and publicly, for RR.  And it would do much to clear things up.  Again, at no cost whatsoever to Braylon.  Even if Braylon really did say it, but now regrets it, I'd let it all go if the important thing -- Braylon's declaration of support -- were to be accomplished at this critical time in the history of the football program.


December 20th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^

I am not a RR hater... But who are we to tell Braylon he has to come out and publicly support RR? He is allowed to believe in and support whoever he wants just as we on MGOBLOG get behind whomever we want. No one seemed to mind when Ricky Leach was on the radio screaming about Loyd Carr and how horrible he was treating RR. But when one high profile alumni says things we don't like has to retract it or be quite? Would I prefer Braylon only say great and wonderfull things about RR sure. But it doesn't diminish what he has given Michigan as far as money or effort on the field in my mind and he is entitled to express his opinion.

Section 1

December 20th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^

We expect our past letterwinners to be respectful and supportive toward our head coach.  That story, is the "Dog bites man" story.

We don't expect our past letterwinners to be publicly critical -- or even worse, supporting the ouster -- of our head football coach.  That one, is the "Man bites dog" story.  And in a media market where there seems to be an enormous appetite for anti-Rodriguez stories, a smart football alum would know to be very, very careful of what he says publicly about that subject.

Now, that doesn't mean that Braylon isn't entitled to an opinion.  He is.  And Braylon has about a million more opportunities to make his voice heard within our Athelitic Department, than you or me.  And that is fine with me.  There aren't any stories out there, about Braylon's private conversations with Martin, or Brandon, or RR, or Stan.  The stories are all about Braylon's comments to reporters, or on tv, or otherwise made in public.

If Braylon is seriously, harshly critical of RR, Braylon can and should talk to Brandon in private.  Better yet, he should talk to RR and Brandon together, in private.

But let's remember something here -- the story, according to Stan Edwards, is not about Braylon's "entitle[ment] to express his opinion."  If we are to believe Stan, both he and Braylon really do support RR, and it is only a mischeivous media or rumor-mongers that have caused the trouble.  Fine!  If Braylon's position for RR is one of "support," then let him say so!

I don't want the Edwardses to be forced into any position that they don't believe in.  I'd just ask, that if they are going to be subjects of media attention and if they are going to be speaking about Michigan, just please be clear about it.


December 20th, 2010 at 4:18 PM ^

What I guess I am saying is that there seems to be this idea that the only time alumni are allowed to speak publicly is if we like what they have to say. Anything else we should never hear about and if we do they are disloyal or have stabbed us in the back.

Ala Jim Harbaugh's comments about academics at Michigan. In my opinion ex football alumni have just as much right to speak publicly if not more so than the rest of us. For the most part the public comments from alumni have been supportive thats to be perfered. But I just don't think that any and all alumni that dare to be critical publicly should be vilified . If I am misrepresenting your position that is not my intent but this additude seems prevelant on the board and I just don't get it.

Section 1

December 20th, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^

Be they private citizens or public figures, no one (at least not me) is suggesting some form of censorship or prior restraint.

But once you have had your say in a public forum, you can't expect not to be criticized if there are critics out there with differing points of view.

I haven't "villified" Stan or Braylon.  For all I know, Stan and Braylon might support RR.  That's what Stan seems to say.  And if they'd both be clear about it, there'd be no need for this debate.

But there's a history with Braylon:

  • The #1 jersey kerfuffle, which Braylon needlessly and pointlessly took public;
  • "Lloyd Carr's University of Michigan" and;
  • "[Coach Rodriguez] is way past the hot seat."

That's the state of affairs that Braylon, and no one else, has created.

If Braylon Edwards and Stan are supportive of Rich Rodriguez, they could just say so, and we could avoid a lot of arguments.

If Braylon Edwards wants to criticize Rich Rodriguez, unlike his his father,  Braylon has every right to do that.  And then I'd have every right to criticize Braylon.  Free speech.  It's a great thing.


December 20th, 2010 at 6:15 PM ^

I agree with you on most of what you said.  Braylon has done so much for the school but, I wish he wouldn't have said some of the things he has said.  As for Stan, I don't think he has said anything negative of RR or the school.  A couple of weeks back, didn't Stan say on WTKA, that he was in the office offering RR his support?

Section 1

December 20th, 2010 at 7:12 PM ^

Indeed, in that hang-up call, Stan angrily complained about Brian's repeating the apparent rumor about Braylon wanting to head the 'fire RR committee."  Stan didn't say in so many words that it was untrue; he was clearly angry about it.  (Perhaps we should presume Stan to have meant that the story was indeed completely untrue.  Or perhaps Stan was mad that it was retold publicly, when it was meant to be private.  I don't know.  Stan didn't stay around long enough to clear it up.)

Then, just as you say, Stan went on to say that he had been in RR's office just the previous week, and that they are on perfectly good speaking terms.  I sensed, in that, that Stan was being truthful.  Just my gut instinct.  So yeah, I think you are right.

And so we are left in this weird place.  We think that Stanley Edwards is very much supportive of Rich Rodriguez.  But he mostly just said that he had been in RR's office with him to talk.  (David Brandon also spends lots of time with RR, no doubt visits the head coach's office in Schembechler Hall... and Brandon might fire RR someday.)  And Stan implies that Braylon is also supportive.  But doesn't say so in so many words.  Neither has Braylon said any such thing.  Wouldn't it be nice, and easy -- quite literally "nice and easy" -- for the two of them to declare their unconditional support for RR?  Wouldn't now be a great time to do that?  It might give the fan base, the staff, even the players, something of a boost as we make final preparations to leave Ann Arbor for a New Year's Day bowl game.


December 20th, 2010 at 7:43 PM ^

It would be real nice if they and all the former players do publicly support RR.  I guess from my standpoint, as long as they do not attack the University publicly, I am ok with it.  However, part of me is saying that RR is part of the University and a critique of him is the same as the University.  As you can tell, I am a very conflicted about this.

Braylon, for as great as he is, has made some very public mistakes but I want to give him a pass because he acknowledged those mistakes and never spoke against the school.  To me, Stan is above reproach for his love of our school.  His call today was about getting his player to his school and it seemed he was trying to help his kid out as well as his school out. 


December 20th, 2010 at 8:32 PM ^

But you sure seem to demand a lot of statements, and positions, from people. And then it's your right to criticize them when they don't do it. Which automatically becomes the case because they're famous, and don't know or care about you from a whole in the wall. Stan doesn't have to clarify Braylon's position for you, because it's none of your fucking business. All Stan cares about is making sure patently false stuff isn't said about him. He made that point, and he doesn't have to clarify anything for you. Braylon doesn't have to support Rich, be his buddy, or make false statements to clarify it for you. Frankly, if he believes Rich is bad for the program, the kids, or whatever his reasons are, I hope he wouldn't. It would be classiest to not make it public if that's the case, but it's certainly not a requirement. You don't know what he's said behind closed doors, because it's just that...behind closed doors. But you still assume it hasn't happened (because YOU haven't heard about it), but will assume the rest just fine.
<br>No one appointed you the judge of what Lloyd should say...what Braylon should say...what Stan should say....or the media can or cannot say. You ARE free to say it, but it doesn't mean anyone is going to give a shit.

Section 1

December 20th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^

I just stated my point of view.

For what it's worth, while Braylon is a brilliant athlete and a terrific pass-catcher, there are about 1000 people who I'd go to, first, before consulting Braylon about a coaching change at the University of Michigan.

If I were an NFL General Manager, I'd happily hire Braylon Edwards to catch passes. 

If I were David Brandon, I would not put Braylon Edwards on a coaching search committee.


December 20th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^

occasions, and seems as though he's extremely thin-skinned when it comes to Braylon getting negged, as many proud fathers will be. I'm willing to give him a pass on that for that reason, although it doesn't mean I agree with him, either.

Regardless, it's obvious that Stan is a Michigan guy through and through, and I love the fact that he basically told Braylon he was coming to Michigan. Contrast that with Mike Boren's attitude.

In the call this morning, I think Edwards was legitimately puzzled about the absence of contact from UM for the kid he was referring to, and knew Sam would be the one to talk to. As for the Kearney recruitment, who knows who said what to who and when. If Kearney had waited just a bit longer he'd be a Wolverine, but that's life in recruiting.


December 20th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^

could also be the fact that beilein already signed two guards in the class (carlton brundidge and trey burke) and might just save the scholarship... would still have liked to have kearney though